Disabled people see assisted suicide as dangerous because of their already marginalised status.

I congratulate the disabled people of the world for having elected Robyn Hunt to speak on their behalf.

There is one small problem.

They didn’t.

A 2015 poll by Populus found higher support for assisted dying or euthanasia laws amongst disabled people, than those without disabilities. The level of support was:

Have a disability: 86%

No disability or longstanding physical or mental condition: 81%

longstanding physical condition 86%

longstanding mental condition 89%

It is quite appropriate to raise issues of concern over any proposed law. It is not appropriate to claim to speak for an entire group of people, when you don’t and in fact your view is very much in the minority of that community.

Related Stories

Comments (40)

Random T Person

The Spinoff is a notorious hangout of lefty liberals and navel-gazers. Once the comments section disappeared, there was no longer any reason to visit it as it became impossible to balance the discussion.

This is the kind of rhetoric people use in political arguments. Taken literally, “Disabled people all over the world oppose it” is true because it doesn’t imply all or even a majority. But it’s easy to mistakenly interpret it as saying that, which is no doubt why that language was chosen. I invite David to assure he has never used language in this way to make his opinion seem more popular than it really is.

Let’s be aware though that there are those supporting issues such as assisted suicide, legalisation of cannabis, marriage equality etc that are entirely intolerant of any view which is different to theirs. I have had a couple of “debates” on assisted suicide with one person who told my that I was not entitled to have or express a view because of my Christian faith.

Those who are regulars here or on my former blog will know that I do not try to ram by faith down people’s throats, but this person had simply decided that because of my faith, I could not possibly have an open mind. He could not have been more wrong.

I have a lot of sympathy for those who are terminally ill, and I can understand why some would choose to end there lives prematurely. That may not automatically translate into support for any future legislation, but I am at least open-minded. But this person was such a zealot he had already decided I would not agree with his worldview, so I was subjected to a torrent of abuse, name-calling etc. If it hadn’t been such a serious subject, I would have found his bigotry mildly amusing.

I don’t need to be told what to think. I resent those who presume to speak on my behalf, and have little tolerance for them.

Huevon

I don’t agree. Disabled people (and the online public in general) railed heavily against the movie Me Before You, which was a story about a young woman who becomes the caretaker of a disabled man who decides to kill himself (despite the two of them falling in love). It was always his decision and he is going to stick with it.

The premise is that Will Traynor is a wealthy quadriplegic struggling with depression; Louisa Clark is a “free spirit” with questionable fashion sense who becomes Will’s caretaker. The movie follows along rom-com lines as the two get to know one another, going to concerts and on trips. However, in the end, Will reveals that he’s going through with the plan he’s had since the beginning of the film: to kill himself at Dignitas, a real-life assisted suicide center in Switzerland. And he does—leaving heaps of money to Lou, who is seen happily traipsing around Paris at the end of the film.

Throughout the film, characters pop up to reinforce the idea that Will’s right to choose is paramount. Because of his disability, the pushback against suicide is muted. Stepping back from the narrative, it isn’t Will’s choice to die, but Jojo Moyes’, the able-bodied author of the book and screenplay—who admits she had never met a person with quadriplegia before writing the book.

Fundamentally, Me Before You is a story about a disabled person killing themselves—for the “greater good” of other characters—written, directed, and acted by abled people for abled people. The director, Thea Sharrock, did not want to show “Will being taken in and out of his chair, or put in a hoist over a bath” so she would not give the “impression… of difficulty” or “make audiences too uncomfortable.” Essentially, the death of a disabled individual is presented as more “normal” than the life of one.

Using hashtags like #MeBeforeAbleism and #MeBeforeEugenics, disabled activists have spoken out on social media and organized protests at theaters. I reached out to several of them to talk about the film. Alexandra Jones, who is partially paralyzed from the waist down, felt extremely let down by the film.

“From the trailer, [Me Before You] was set up like this amazing rom-com that just happened to have a disabled man in a wheelchair as the main person. Someone I could relate to. I kind of fell for it, hook line and sinker, so I researched it. It was then that I realized that it painted [Will] and therefore me in a horrific light, which strikes me because I’m struggling with being a burden and with finding someone who can love me. So giving me a romance movie and telling me I’ll only get that if I die? Or that I’m not worthy of it? It caused a spike in my depression. It caused self-harm and worse for me. It paints [suicide] as a noble choice and it isn’t, and I’m so scared that people will start to believe it. I’m terrified that my choice of living will be taken away because people believe this. If I had seen this movie when I first had to be in a wheelchair, I wouldn’t have survived.”

labrator

If one good thing has come from her mischaracterisation of what Seymour wrote, it’s that I got to read his original article. If ACT had 5 similar candidates, I’d feel a lot more secure about the near future of NZ politics.

Andrei

RF

Did the green reporter, daughter of the nasty rent a crowd person mis-speak on the TV One 6pm news last night. I heard the other two that front the news later scrambling to clarify that Bradford did not really mean to say what she said. All very confusing.

Maybe she had her mind on other things that used to live in a doer upper in a leafy suburb.

mandk

From the questionnaire referred to: “They would need to be of sound mind, be terminally ill and have 6 months or less to live, and a High Court judge would have to be satisfied that they had made a voluntary, clear and settled decision to end their life, with time to consider all other options”

Sounds reasonable, but the problem is that in other jurisdictions where similar conditions are theoretically imposed, the conditions are routinely and extensively ignored.

We can engage in pious talk about safeguards, but they wouldn’t actually amount to much. If we had assisted dying, we would soon have involuntary terminations, not to mention the “duty to die”.

Nukuleka

So we are expected to take at face value a poll that is entitled ‘Dignity in Dying’ are we? Just as the gays created ‘homophobia’ and the Islamists ‘Islamophobia’ so too have the euthanasia enthusiasts monopolised the term ‘dignity’ to embrace their Kill Granny Bill.

If we had assisted dying, we would soon have involuntary terminations, not to mention the “duty to die”.

Exactly. We have a law that says abortion is permitted where there is serious danger to the woman’s health, but I doubt there is a woman in NZ who wants an abortion for any reason and cannot find a doctor who will certify there is a serious danger to her health if the pregnancy continues.

We know that we cannot trust doctors to follow the clear intention of the law when they think they know best. We also know there are plenty of doctors who think it’s best to end your life when you are elderly or ill and a burden to those who have to care for you. It is very difficult to come up with a system that has reliable safeguards. That why euthanasia proponents tend take the existence of sufficient safeguards as an assumption, rather than trying to actually specify them.

Shunda barunda

“I see Andrei has neatly Godwinned the thread already.”

Well, Andrei is wrong about the Nazis pioneering this path, Nazi Germany based all of its eugenics/euthanasia programs on other western nations research and ideology in the first instance.
Western elites have long lusted after more control over life and death since social Darwinism became such a juicy topic among the intelligentsia.
The Nazis threw a spanner in the works of course, once the world saw what it was all really about it all became a bit yucky for most people, heck, even the North American eugenics society had to change its name to Family planning before they could get on with the task of killing babies.
But time roles on and the masses forget, so these ideas come back stronger again as history is conveniently forgotten or ignored.
Maybe we can do it better than the Nazis, because WE will have checks and balances 😉

Hitler and Margaret Sanger of America’s Planned Parenthood actually had a mutual admiration thing going on as regards euthanasia. She was an open supporter of Germany’s sterilization laws. Sanger also gave a speech to the KKK.

GoVege

Our grannies are already being bumped off in this country.
When you’re old and frail and have a heart condition, you don’t need a needle.
All you need is to be yelled at constantly, told at 86 you’ve lived “long enough”, denied health workers or visitors, and locked in a boiling hot room with no ventilation for good measure.
No need for “euthanasia”.
Even if another of your relatives tries to get the police to investigate the circumstances of your death, they are very unlikely to even speak to your abuser.

Kriss X

Harriet

“…..They would need to be of sound mind, be terminally ill and have 6 months or less to live,….”

Mummy didn’t want to be with us anymore, she was talkative, but her selfishness won out. I wish we’d been allowed just two more weeks with mummy —- but the civilian NZ govt health manager said she’d call the New Zealand Police Service if we didn’t fuck off.

Salacious Crumb

Can any of the naysayers please explain why a healthcare professional shouldn’t be protected from prosecution under current law for giving the same level of care they currently give the terminally ill, that aren’t due to religious doctrine and Godwins Law?

GoVege

Waikatogirl: I have to admit I’m not acquainted with that many elderly people, but I have spoken with the head social worker at a large hospital in an affluent area who have a high proportion of such patients.
She told me: “We see some terrible things done to old people.”
Of course these are wealthy old people who are worth more to their relatives dead.

waikatogirl

GoVege
I have to admit I’m not acquainted with that many elderly people, but I have spoken with the head social worker at a large hospital in an affluent area who have a high proportion of such patients.
She told me: “We see some terrible things done to old people.”
Of course these are wealthy old people who are worth more to their relatives dead.
*
I am sure there are some badly looked after elderly. However, I am at the age where my parents are elderly.
My 95 year old mother-in-law recently moved into a care home. She is healthier, eating better and having daily human contact. She is happy and well looked after.

There needs to be more information for families on where and how to get help for those elderly in their own homes or those who are no longer able to be independent. Many elderly won’t ask for help or admit they are past caring for themselves safely.

It appears many elderly may not get proper help until they have an accident or illness and end up in hospital where the medical staff assess they are no longer able to care for themselves, and won’t let them return home. They then end up in care homes. Hopefully in a good, caring environment.

GoVege

Waikatogirl: The scenario you describe is what usually happens with fiercely independent elderly people, I was told recently.
In the meantime, one or two visits/ outings a week are usually all they need to keep them happy.
Unfortunately there are some people who are just waiting for their inheritance and want to hurry it up.
I never believed anyone would abuse a frail old person until I saw it myself.
It’s just another form of DV and often the perps are the same also.

Harriet

“…..and end up in hospital where the medical staff assess they are no longer able to care for themselves, and won’t let them return home…..”

I’d hardly think that is true WG………as far as I understand hospital staff have no say what soever in where a patient decides to live…..however unless they were intending to hurt themselves then yes, hospital staff would probably have some authority in keeping them within hospital, but that’s about it.

Within govt, civilians are just civilians – they can’t ‘make you do’ anything – which is different to ‘denying you of something’ – some IRD officers, judges and some others are exempted – they can make you do something. The only people that do have some authority over the public are the non-civilians like the police and army[the army only under marshal law & military rule in general]

As an aside, no women in NZ has to have an abortion, they can simply sign some forms and leave the baby with the hospital after the birth — that’s the law —- but you will never here that from the pro-abortion crowd —- they instead make out that women will be ‘hard done by’ if abortion was illegal —– it’s clearly total crap. But that’s ‘health professionals’ for you — a law unto themselves!!

I looked up Robyn Hunt in google. It says: Human (disability) rights & accessible comms, arts access specialist. Activist, feminist, writer, speaker & trainer.
Yes, nothing to see.
David Seymour has brought assisted dignified death to our attention, but this worthy social consideration may have a substantial gestation period.
In that regard I would rather see David Seymour getting on with the pressing issues.
He makes no statements about our race privilege society. Maori are not benefiting from their tribal leaders successful corruption of our political system, but David says nothing, as far as I know, And lassitude over the Auckland housing crisis.
Heading off subject here, so end..

Harriet

It’s very disturbing that the same people at KB who don’t want capital punishment due to the very occasional mistake being made, then want to introduce euthanasia where cancer, coma and other misdiagnosisis’ is far far more common.

The statement made by Robyn Hunt is no different, or any less insulting, than those made time and time again in this blog post by followers of the sky fairy. These evil people want and demand that others suffer because of their fucking stupid religion.

waikatogirl

Harriet:
I’d hardly think that is true WG………as far as I understand hospital staff have no say what soever in where a patient decides to live…..however unless they were intending to hurt themselves then yes, hospital staff would probably have some authority in keeping them within hospital, but that’s about it.
*
Couple of real life examples for you then:
Elderly woman has medical issue due to alzheimers and ends up in hospital where she has stays until health improves. Family have control over her health and welfare but no ability to move a stubborn old woman ‘against her will’. Doctors say she is unable to live alone safely and tell her she cannot return home. She is now in a care home and doing well.

A sick elderly man falls out of chair and breaks vertabrae. He was DETERMINED to return home despite his wife being in her 90’s and no longer able to care for him. Family interviewed by medical staff and social worker. Upshot, he is moved into a care home and his wife is choosing to move into a cottage in same retirement village as her husband.

Thank goodness for the medical/welfare assessment by our hospital professionals. These are two examples where families have been prevented helping their elderly to move to a safe place.

Their sheer bloody mindedness was stopping them from accepting help when they can no longer look after themselves.